Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

If you really want to crap yourself in despair, check out Jon Oliver's segment on indigent defense from this past Sunday.

The US justice system is much like the US health care system; as bad as you might think it is, it's probably worse.

That's a good example. Actually, the U.S. healthcare system works pretty well if you have good corporate medical insurance or lots of money; if not, you're screwed (maybe over time the ACA will change that). The justice system works the same way: if you can afford the best lawyers, you have a good chance of winning, maybe even staying out of court, unless your case is so cut-and-dried that nothing could save you. But for everybody else, you'll plead guilty to something you didn't do just so the DA won't throw the book at you.

So they're seriously going to execute someone on that crappy BS evidence.

Yes, but it's hard to know exactly what is going on or who screwed up. Read the Governor's statement...she is saying that Glossip's attorneys didn't do what she asked of them. I am confused as to why they are not presenting their evidence in a court of law.

Quote:

For months, and as part of a larger publicity campaign opposing the death penalty, Richard Glossip’s attorneys have been publicly claiming to have new evidence that exonerates their client. During that time, my office and I have urged them to bring that so-called evidence to the proper venue: a court of law. Not only have Glossip’s lawyers not done so, but they have actively rejected requests from public officials to examine whatever materials they have. His attorneys even refused to share the contact information of so-called ‘new witnesses’ with Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater and with my office.

Yesterday, forty-eight hours before Glossip’s scheduled execution, his attorneys presented my office with a binder of what they have labeled ‘new evidence.’ After reviewing it with my legal team, we have determined the vast majority of the limited content they have presented is not new; furthermore, we find none of the material to be credible evidence of Richard Glossip’s innocence. After carefully reviewing the facts of this case multiple times, I see no reason to cast doubt on the guilty verdict reached by the jury or to delay Glossip’s sentence of death. For that reason I am rejecting his request for a stay of execution.

Nevertheless, I join our district attorney in urging Glossip’s legal team to present whatever information they have to a court of law. Courts, unlike my office, have the legal authority to grant an indefinite stay of execution or a retrial. Courts are the proper venue to present new information or evidence, and the attorneys representing Glossip have a moral and ethical duty to file legal documents and make their case in front of a judge.

In the event that a court refuses to issue a stay, Richard Glossip will be executed tomorrow. I hope the execution brings a sense of closure and peace to the Van Treese family, who has suffered greatly because of Glossip’s crimes.

ETA: I know nothing about the case except what is in the OP and the article that I linked to, so I have no idea as to the validity of the Governor's remarks or the Slate article. It may be that the matter is far more complicated or confusing than the Slate article makes it out to be. Then again, it may be exactly as presented therein. Certainly innocent people have been put to death before, so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is innocent, too.

.....
It may be that the matter is far more complicated or confusing than the Slate article makes it out to be. Then again, it may be exactly as presented therein. Certainly innocent people have been put to death before, so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is innocent, too.

I'm willing to concede -- even bet -- that the matter is more complicated than the Slate article says. But the state's own claim is that the guy they are executing inspired the murder that was actually carried out by the guy who made a deal and was sentenced to prison. It seems unjust on its face to send an actual murderer to prison, while a co-conspirator gets put to death. After all, the murderer had the last chance to prevent the crime. And this guy has attracted the support of one of most conservative (former) Senators, which should count for something.

But the state's own claim is that the guy they are executing inspired the murder that was actually carried out by the guy who made a deal and was sentenced to prison. It seems unjust on its face to send an actual murderer to prison, while a co-conspirator gets put to death.

Yeah, that is pretty unjust. I honestly don't know how some of these prosecutors live with themselves.

But the state's own claim is that the guy they are executing inspired the murder that was actually carried out by the guy who made a deal and was sentenced to prison. It seems unjust on its face to send an actual murderer to prison, while a co-conspirator gets put to death. After all, the murderer had the last chance to prevent the crime.

OTOH, the guy ordering the murder (which is a step or three above "co-conspirator") has the first and best chance to see no crime is committed. Unless it is suggested Sneed was offering "hits on spec"

__________________The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

OTOH, the guy ordering the murder (which is a step or three above "co-conspirator") has the first and best chance to see no crime is committed. Unless it is suggested Sneed was offering "hits on spec"

You have a point when there's a power imbalance between the two persons - like a mafia boss ordering one of his underlings to carry out a hit. But in this case, even if the story as told by Sneed were true (I don't think so, based on the write-ups of Slate and Guardian) - then I don't see how in any way Glossip could have "ordered" Sneed to murder Van Treese, much less why Sneed on such a suggestion would have answered anything else than "are you out of your mind".

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

I'm willing to concede -- even bet -- that the matter is more complicated than the Slate article says. But the state's own claim is that the guy they are executing inspired the murder that was actually carried out by the guy who made a deal and was sentenced to prison. It seems unjust on its face to send an actual murderer to prison, while a co-conspirator gets put to death. After all, the murderer had the last chance to prevent the crime. And this guy has attracted the support of one of most conservative (former) Senators, which should count for something.

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

Yeah, that is pretty unjust. I honestly don't know how some of these prosecutors live with themselves.

By offering a reduced sentence they were able to convict two criminals instead of just one. How is that not more just than letting the second criminal get away with it?

The problem with that is that offering a reduced sentence could also induce a criminal to implicate an innocent person in order to lessen his own punishment.

That is possible. It is possible even without a second criminal. I might accuse anyone of anything. This is the purpose of a jury and a trial - to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, what the facts are. This is further bolstered by the appeals process, judicial review, and executive review.

"No, no, no, don't confess like that, this is what we want you to say and who we want you to blame and if you do we won't put you to death."

Nope can't see how that could possible go wrong in any way at all.

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)My Apollo Page.

By offering a reduced sentence they were able to convict two criminals instead of just one. How is that not more just than letting the second criminal get away with it?

It isn't the convictions, it's the sentences.

Of course, you knew that, which is why you had to make up an argument of your own to disagree with.

(Isn't there a name for that?_

__________________"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
***********************************************
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

So, it's a conspiracy then? Cops, prosecutors... let's see, maybe the judges too? And what about the guy who originally confessed to the crime? Could be he's innocent as well.

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Once tainted evidence enters the system -- in this case, an accusation coerced in exchange for a reduced sentence -- there doesn't need to be a conspiracy by anybody else, just a willingness to trust the evidence as presented. In this case, the only "evidence" against Glossip was the testimony of Sneed in exchange for a deal -- no physical evidence, no witnesses, no nothing -- yet two juries weren't allowed to see the video of the interrogations that led to the accusation. One juror who convicted Glossip has said she would have voted differently if she had seen all the evidence. One "He did it!" might be enough to send somebody to prison, but it shouldn't be enough by itself to send somebody to his death.

Once tainted evidence enters the system -- in this case, an accusation coerced in exchange for a reduced sentence -- there doesn't need to be a conspiracy by anybody else, just a willingness to trust the evidence as presented.

How do you know the evidence is tainted? Isn't that begging the question. Secondly, "enters the system" seems to imply it won't be challenged, but there was a defense mounted in this case.

You do not say so directly, but I think your statement implies a willingness to trust the evidence more than it deserves to be trusted, and professionals (both cops and lawyers) are out to get the guy, despite the lack of evidence against him.

Quote:

In this case, the only "evidence" against Glossip was the testimony of Sneed in exchange for a deal -- no physical evidence, no witnesses, no nothing -- yet two juries weren't allowed to see the video of the interrogations that led to the accusation.

This is misleading. There was other testimony and evidence against him. You may not believe it was strong evidence, but there was a case presented that went beyond the accusation of the other murderer. Also, if not showing the interview to jurors was a material flaw, was it raised on appeal?

Sneed (the accuser) did testify and was cross examined. The jury found him credible. This is part of their job. I assume (but do not know) that the "you are just ratting him out to get a lower sentence" defense was raised and rejected by the jury. Again, part of their job.

....
This is misleading. There was other testimony and evidence against him. You may not believe it was strong evidence, but there was a case presented that went beyond the accusation of the other murderer. Also, if not showing the interview to jurors was a material flaw, was it raised on appeal?

Sneed (the accuser) did testify and was cross examined. The jury found him credible. This is part of their job. I assume (but do not know) that the "you are just ratting him out to get a lower sentence" defense was raised and rejected by the jury. Again, part of their job.

1) The first conviction was overturned on appeal. The Appeals court ruled that Richard's defense attorney was so incompetent, that Richard was denied a fair trial. Frankly, his first attorney was bizarre, and had his license to practice revoked. You or I could have done a better job, that's how bad he was. Essentially that trial does not 'count'.
2) The second trial was rife with errors and, although his attorney was more competent than the attorney in his first trial (which is not saying much), he failed to use crucial evidence that would have demonstrated Richard's innocence. Again, Richard did not have money to hire a good attorney. If he had, the outcome would have been very different.

Two trials, plenty of appeals, and 17 years on death row. How many chances do you get to prove innocence? Wait, I know - until the verdict comes out the right way...

Well firstly it should not be up to you to prove innocence, but up to the prosecution to have a rock solid case. After all I always get from a few american which likes death penalty there are check and balance, you don't condemn somebody on flimsy evidence yada yada.

But now let us pretend you are at the step where you somehow maintain he has to prove his innocence, and the only evidence against him is a testimony, and it turns out that the way the testimony was obtained was .... let us say unorthodox, and you don't even raise an eyebrow ?

Let me guess you are of the opinion that it is better to kill an innocent mine than let 1 guilty go free ?

Personally I see let him have an appeal but this time with the whole testimony and the way the sneed perp got his plead deal completely open, and let us see if a jury really think that glossip is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Well firstly it should not be up to you to prove innocence, but up to the prosecution to have a rock solid case. After all I always get from a few american which likes death penalty there are check and balance, you don't condemn somebody on flimsy evidence yada yada.

But now let us pretend you are at the step where you somehow maintain he has to prove his innocence, and the only evidence against him is a testimony, and it turns out that the way the testimony was obtained was .... let us say unorthodox, and you don't even raise an eyebrow ?

Rock solid case? Where are you getting that. The phrase is, "innocent until proven guilty." That happened; he's been proven guilty.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Let me guess you are of the opinion that it is better to kill an innocent mine than let 1 guilty go free ?

I don't think innocent people should be killed. The dichotomy you set up there would be more properly phrased as "no one should be killed, because everyone is innocent."

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Personally I see let him have an appeal but this time with the whole testimony and the way the sneed perp got his plead deal completely open, and let us see if a jury really think that glossip is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

And what if he is found guilty again? Well, let's spin the wheel again...

These same arguments would have been made five years ago, or ten. The guy with the life sentence might end up dying before the guy with the death sentence.

Rock solid case? Where are you getting that. The phrase is, "innocent until proven guilty." That happened; he's been proven guilty.

I think you forgot beyond reasonable doubt. The problem with this deal system and cop not being forced to deliver all what they gathered, is that they can make the illusion of a rock solid case which is in reality so flimsy that anybody would have reasonable doubt. That happened time and time again with people getting innocented. And frankly a reason why in all practical purpose you will not find any western nation having death penalty anymore. Not only US has Death penalty, but give the right to their cop to isolate evidence and how they got them. That is plainly bad and throw a doubt on the evidence, they might be not "tainted" in the elgal sense, but to anybody with 2 cent of common sense, they clearly are when it is the word of 1 guy against another and there is no other evidences.

Quote:

I don't think innocent people should be killed. The dichotomy you set up there would be more properly phrased as "no one should be killed, because everyone is innocent."

No. The dichotomy , a true one, is : we are human and err. Either you accept innocent will get death penalty, or you refuse it. I am on teh refuse it camp. You OTOH seem perfectely content with what looks to us reasonable doubt, because , hey , "he got a chance so now he is guilty whatever".

Quote:

And what if he is found guilty again? Well, let's spin the wheel again...

If all evidence are presented , including the way the police got the confession and the plea ? Then he is guilty.

Quote:

These same arguments would have been made five years ago, or ten. The guy with the life sentence might end up dying before the guy with the death sentence.

Except that if you got no money and a crappy lawyer, or if the cop hide what look what could bring reasonable doubt you are SOL.

A process where it is word against word should not come to the condemnation of anybody frankly anyway.

I think you forgot beyond reasonable doubt. The problem with this deal system and cop not being forced to deliver all what they gathered, is that they can make the illusion of a rock solid case which is in reality so flimsy that anybody would have reasonable doubt. That happened time and time again with people getting innocented. And frankly a reason why in all practical purpose you will not find any western nation having death penalty anymore. Not only US has Death penalty, but give the right to their cop to isolate evidence and how they got them. That is plainly bad and throw a doubt on the evidence, they might be not "tainted" in the elgal sense, but to anybody with 2 cent of common sense, they clearly are when it is the word of 1 guy against another and there is no other evidences.

There is other evidence. And this is a skeptic's forum, there is no standard of evidence which is 100% certain. Hence the "reasonable" part of the equation. Whether you or I believe it is reasonable doesn't matter - we leave it up to a jury to decide.

Besides, criticisms of the system don't really help your case. If the guy is innocent, he's spent 17 years (so far) on death row. Are you prepared to let him go on the strength of your doubts? If not, then execution was the sentence, on what grounds would you not have it carried out?

Originally Posted by Aepervius

No. The dichotomy , a true one, is : we are human and err. Either you accept innocent will get death penalty, or you refuse it. I am on teh refuse it camp. You OTOH seem perfectely content with what looks to us reasonable doubt, because , hey , "he got a chance so now he is guilty whatever".

Yes, we are humans and we err. To mitigate this, we establish a system where a pool of representatives looks at the evidence and decides the issue. If they cannot find guilt - beyond a reasonable doubt - the person goes free. That's the point of application for your complaint. You don't solve anything by revisiting the situation over and over again. Would you, for example, accept a policy of retrying everyone who wasn't found guilty in case we accidentally let someone go who did the crime? Why would it only work in one direction?

Any justification you give for continually retrying a case just passes the decision off to the next step. Unless the goal is to never get an actionable decision, this makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

If all evidence are presented , including the way the police got the confession and the plea ? Then he is guilty.

Why would that make him guilty? Surely someone else might have lied, or concealed other evidence? You can never be sure.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Except that if you got no money and a crappy lawyer, or if the cop hide what look what could bring reasonable doubt you are SOL.

He got a retrial because of just that. Does that satisfy you? Probably not. Not if you are arguing for a third trial now...

Originally Posted by Aepervius

A process where it is word against word should not come to the condemnation of anybody frankly anyway.

It always comes into it. That's part of the jury's job - to decide who they believe.

Mr. Van Treese reviewed the books and discovered $6,101.92 in shortages for the Oklahoma City motel in 1996. Mrs. Van Treese testified her husband intended to ask Glossip about the shortages...

This 'shortage' is supposedly the reason Richard felt he would be fired. It's a bizarre notion: that a reasonable person would think killing the boss would prevent his termination. And by all accounts Richard was a reasonable person, having successfully managed fast food businesses as well as motels.

Even more important: there are no records showing this. Richard's attorney requested the accounts, and was told they'd been lost in a flood. There was no other evidence of this 'motive' for the crime, other than the testimony of Mrs. Van Treese. Up to that point Richard had received monthly bonuses for the work he was doing in keeping the rooms rented.

If I remember correctly, the secretary-general in "Yes Minister" mentions "flood" as second option why certain documents are missing from a FOIA request. IOW: it's a bald-faced lie. When did this flood happen? If this is true, then as soon as Mrs. Treese heard her husband had been murdered, she must have suspected Glossip for this motive and have mailed copies to the police or DA and nothing would have been lost. Besides that, even in 1997, I really can't imagine why you would do your accounting on paper and not electronically. And keep backups.

As to the disbarred lawyer: for a good laugh, read the comments section of this article in the Tulsa World. He has made multiple comments there that get progressively more bizarre. Though I'm now kinda curious what that alleged $24k covered in blue dye in Mr. Treese's trunk is about.

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

Magnifying the situation is the fact that Sneedís story of the plotting and murder of Van Treese had morphed considerably between his first confession to police in 1997 and his testimony at Glossipís first trial in June 1998. Sneedís story changed yet again when he testified at Glossipís second trial in May 2004. Each time Sneed told his tale, it became more elaborate, and included many new details that painted Glossip as a man hell-bent on murder.

One of the reasons Glossip was arrested (before the confession of Sneed) was that Glossip changed his story. I suppose it works both ways, right?

No it doesn't, actually. Glossip has consistently said that he neither killed anybody nor caused anybody else to kill anybody. His "changed story" is apparently that he didn't at first tell police that Sneed claimed to have killed Van Treese because he thought Sneed was joking. You'd think if he was really trying to get away with murder he might have pointed the finger at somebody else at the very earliest opportunity. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's plenty of doubt here.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.